N. ADJOURNMENT - Novusolutions

A G E N D AJAMES CITY COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS

REGULAR MEETINGCounty Government Center Board Room

101 Mounts Bay Road, Williamsburg, VA 23185January 27, 2015

6:30 PM

A. CALL TO ORDER

B. ROLL CALL

C. MOMENT OF SILENCE

D. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

1. Pledge Leader

E. PRESENTATIONS

1. Lead Historic Triangle Class of 2015 Adopt-A-Bench Proposal

F. PUBLIC COMMENT - Until 7 p.m.

G. CONSENT CALENDAR

1. Minutes2. Appointment of Animal Control Officer3. Contract Award – Jamestown Beach Park Phase II Improvements –

$690,6324. Contract Award - Phrase III, Jamestown Beach Park Paddle Craft

Launch Site and Beach Stabilization - $284,8915. Grant Award - Office of Emergency Medical Services (OEMS)

Rescue Squad Assistance Fund (RSAF) - $32,0006. Agreement between the Virginia Department of Transportation and the

Board of Supervisors of James City County, Virginia7. Revised Administrative Plan for the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher

Program8. Resolution of the Board of Supervisors of James City County, Virginia,

Declaring its Intention to Reimburse Itself from the Proceeds of one ormore Financings for Certain Costs of Capital Improvements

H. PUBLIC HEARING(S)

1. Charter Amendment § 7.4 Division of Planning of the James CityCounty Charter

2. Authorization of Sale of Property Located at 7849 Church Lane3. Authorization of Sale of a Portion of Property Located at 3135 Forge

Road

I. BOARD CONSIDERATION(S)

J. BOARD REQUESTS AND DIRECTIVES

K. REPORTS OF THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR

1. County Administrator's Report

L. PUBLIC COMMENT

M. CLOSED SESSION

1. Personnel Matter, the Appointment of Individuals to County Boardsand/or Commissions pursuant to Section 2.2-3711 (A) (1) of the Codeof Virginia

CoverSheet.aspx?ItemID=234&MeetingID=81















N. ADJOURNMENT

1. Adjourn until 10 a.m. on January 31, 2015, for the Budget Retreat


AGENDA ITEM NO. D.1.

ITEM SUMMARY

DATE: 1/27/2015

TO: The Board of Supervisors

FROM: Teresa J. Fellows, Secretary to the Board

SUBJECT: Pledge Leader

Tonight's Pledge will be give by Shelby and Maggie Watson, residents of the Stonehouse District.

ATTACHMENTS:Description TypePledge Form Exhibit

REVIEWERS:Department Reviewer Action DateBoard Secretary Fellows, Teresa Approved 1/16/2015 - 12:47 PM

AttachmentViewer.ashx?AttachmentID=247&ItemID=234

AGENDA ITEM NO. E.1.

ITEM SUMMARY

DATE: 1/27/2015


FROM: Dawn Olesky, Environmental Coordinator

SUBJECT: Lead Historic Triangle Class of 2015 Adopt-A-Bench Proposal

REVIEWERS:Department Reviewer Action DateBoard Secretary Fellows, Teresa Approved 1/13/2015 - 4:03 PMBoard Secretary Approved 1/15/2015 - 11:29 AMBoard Secretary Fellows, Teresa Approved 1/15/2015 - 12:04 PMPublication Management Colonna, Tina Approved 1/15/2015 - 1:32 PMBoard Secretary Fellows, Teresa Approved 1/15/2015 - 1:44 PMBoard Secretary Approved 1/20/2015 - 9:46 AMBoard Secretary Fellows, Teresa Approved 1/20/2015 - 11:44 AM

AGENDA ITEM NO. G.1.

ITEM SUMMARY

DATE: 1/27/2015



SUBJECT: Minutes

MinutesDecember 9, 2014, Regular Meeting January 2, 2015, Organizational Meeting

ATTACHMENTS:Description TypeMinutes - December 9, 2014, Regular Meeting MinutesMinutes - January 2, 2015, OrganizationalMeeting Minutes




AT A REGULAR MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF JAMES

CITY, VIRGINIA, HELD ON THE 9TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2014, AT 7:00 P.M. IN THE

COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER BOARD ROOM, 101 MOUNTS BAY ROAD, JAMES CITY

COUNTY, VIRGINIA.

A. CALL TO ORDER

B. ROLL CALL

Mary K. Jones, Chairman, Berkeley District

Michael J. Hipple, Vice Chairman, Powhatan District

James G. Kennedy, Stonehouse District

Kevin D. Onizuk, Jamestown District

John J. McGlennon, Roberts District

Bryan J. Hill, County Administrator

Adam R. Kinsman, Interim County Attorney

C. MOMENT OF SILENCE

D. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE – James City County Youth Advisory Council Members led the Board

and citizens in the Pledge of Allegiance.

At 7:03 p.m., Ms. Jones recessed the Board of Supervisors meeting in order to conduct the James City

Service Authority Board of Directors meeting.

At 7:05 p.m., Ms. Jones reconvened the Board of Supervisors meeting.

E. PRESENTATIONS

1. Chairman’s Award – Citizen Group

Ms. Jones presented the 2014 Chairman’s Award to the Clean County Commission for its hard work

and service to the community.

2. Chairman’s Award – Staff Member(s)

Ms. Jones presented the 2014 Chairman’s Award to Mr. Scott Brandt, Landscape Technician, for his

hard work at numerous County facilities enhancing the natural beauty of the landscape.

Ms. Jones presented the 2014 Chairman’s Award to Ms. Christina Spilde, Senior Groundskeeper, for

her hard work and leadership of grounds crews that maintain the medians and roadways throughout the

County.

- 2 -

3. FY 2014 Financial Statements

Ms. Leslie Roberts, of Dixon Hughes and Goodman, addressed the Board giving an overview of the

FY 2014 financial audit. The FY 2014 financial statements were included in the Agenda Packet as a Reading

File item.

4. Presentation by Delegate Brenda Pogge

Delegate Brenda Pogge was unable to attend the meeting; the presentation will be rescheduled for a

later date.

F. PUBLIC COMMENTS

1. Mr. Richard Gould, 309 Archers Mead, addressed the Board regarding the Articles of

Incorporation of Kingsmill.

2. Mr. Chris Henderson, 101 Keystone, addressed the Board regarding the passing of Mr. John

McDonald.

3. Ms. Carol Anderson, 34 Kirkland Court, addressed the Board offering Christmas greetings.

4. Mr. Ed Oyer, 139 Indian Circle, addressed the Board regarding the passing of Mr. McDonald.

G. BOARD REQUESTS AND DIRECTIVES

Ms. Jones recognized the Planning Commission representative in attendance this evening, Mr. Tim

O’Conner.

Ms. Jones expressed her condolences on the passing of Mr. McDonald and stated that he will be

greatly missed by the community and the staff.

H. CONSENT CALENDAR

Mr. Onizuk made a motion to approve the Consent Calendar.

On a roll call vote, the vote was: AYE: Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Hipple, Mr. McGlennon, Mr. Onizuk, Ms.

Jones (5). NAY: (0).

1. Minutes –

a. November 25, 2014, Regular Meeting

- 3 -

2. Grant Award – Williamsburg Health Foundation – $1,789

R E S O L U T I O N

GRANT AWARD - WILLIAMSBURG HEALTH FOUNDATION - $1,789

WHEREAS, the Williamsburg Health Foundation has available funds to be used for the development of

healthy community initiatives; and

WHEREAS, funds are needed to retrofit existing drinking fountains at the Warhill Sports Complex to also

allow for sports bottle filling.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of James City County, Virginia,

accepts the $1,789 grant amendment awarded by the Williamsburg Health Foundation to fund

the water fountain project.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of James City County, Virginia, hereby

authorizes the following appropriation.

Revenue:

From the Williamsburg Health Foundation $1,789

Expenditure:

Grant Account $1,789

3. Grant Appropriation – Clerk of the Circuit Court – $54,974

R E S O L U T I O N

GRANT APPROPRIATION – CLERK OF THE CIRCUIT COURT – $54,974

WHEREAS, the State Compensation Board has awarded a Technology Trust Fund grant to the Clerk of the

Circuit Court totaling $54,974; and

WHEREAS, the grant will be used for the replacement of computer equipment and records modernization;

and

WHEREAS, no local match is required for this grant.


hereby authorizes the following appropriation to the Special Projects/Grant Fund:

- 4 -

Revenue:

Revenue from the Commonwealth $54,974

Expenditure:

Clerk of the Circuit Court $54,974

4. Contract Award – Roof Replacement Recreation Center – $217,700

R E S O L U T I O N

CONTRACT AWARD – ROOF REPLACEMENT RECREATION CENTER – $217,700

WHEREAS, this project is necessary to replace a membrane roof that had reached its life span and was

exhibiting leaks; and

WHEREAS, funds are available from the Capital Improvement Project accounts; and

WHEREAS, seven bids were considered for award and Starburst Construction was the lowest responsive and

responsible bidder.


hereby awards the contract in the amount of $217,700 for the Roof Replacement Recreation

Center to Starburst Construction, LLC.

5. Contract Award – Body Worn Cameras – $110,151

R E S O L U T I O N

CONTRACT AWARD - BODY WORN CAMERAS - $110,151

WHEREAS, funds are available in the adopted FY 2015 / FY2016 budget for the purchase of body worn

cameras and related equipment; and

WHEREAS, additional funding to outfit remaining designated personnel is anticipated through grant funding

and future County budget funding requests for additional cameras, equipment, and licensing

costs; and

WHEREAS, cooperative procurement action is authorized by Chapter 1, Section 5, of the James City County

Purchasing Policy and the Virginia Public Procurement Act, and the Houston-Galveston Area

Council issued a cooperative purchasing contract to Atlantic Emergency Solutions as a result of

a competitive sealed Invitation for Bid; and

- 5 -

WHEREAS, Police Department and Purchasing staff determined the contract specifications meet the

County’s performance requirements for body worn cameras, docking stations, warranties, and

licensing and negotiated a price of $110,151 with TASER International for body worn cameras,

docking stations, warranties, and licensing.


hereby authorizes the County Administrator to execute a contract with TASER International for

Axon body cameras, docking stations, warranties, and licensing in the amount of $110,151.

6. Establishment of Full-Time Registered Nurse (RN) Position, Olde Town Medical and Dental Center

(OTMDC)

R E S O L U T I O N

ESTABLISHMENT OF FULL-TIME REGISTERED NURSE (RN) POSITON,

OLDE TOWNE MEDICAL AND DENTAL CENTER (OTMDC)

WHEREAS, the James City Board of Supervisors has the authority to establish full-time County positons;

and

WHEREAS, the Board of Directors of the Williamsburg Area Medical Assistance Corporation (WAMAC)

desires to establish a full-time Registered Nurse (RN) position at Olde Towne Medical and

Dental Center (OTMDC) and has allocated funds for this position effective January 1, 2015.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of James City County, Virginia,

hereby approves the establishment of a full-time (2,080 hours/year) RN for OTMDC effective

January 1, 2015.

7. Joint Public Safety/Public Service Radio Communications System – New Kent County

R E S O L U T I O N

JOINT PUBLIC SAFETY/PUBLIC SERVICE RADIO COMMUNICATIONS SYSTEM –

NEW KENT COUNTY WHEREAS, the Counties of James City, York and Gloucester have organized under a Memorandum of

Understanding to create and operate a regional public safety and public service radio

communications system WHEREAS, New Kent County has asked to be a part of that regional system and has agreed to provide a

portion of the costs of upgrading the master site to accommodate them; and WHEREAS, the regional system would otherwise have upgraded the master site without the New Kent

contribution, at a higher cost, and the addition of New Kent County will improve coverage for

James City County public safety operations in both eastern James City County and in the I-64

corridor in New Kent County; and

- 6 -

WHEREAS, the current Memorandum of Understanding needs to be reviewed and amended both in order to

add New Kent County and to develop long-term financial strategies to maintain the current

system and to evaluate alternatives to minimize the annual financial commitment of the

participating partners. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of James City County, Virginia, that

the County Administrator is hereby authorized to negotiate and execute modifications to the

Memorandum of Understanding as he determines necessary to add New Kent County to the

regional system and to define and implement financial strategies to minimize the costs to the

jurisdictional partners in the future. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the County Administrator is directed to incorporate within the fiscal year

2016 budget funds sufficient to provide for James City County’s share of the necessary master

site upgrades, estimated to be $750,000.

I. PUBLIC HEARINGS

1. Exemption from County Real and Personal Property Taxes – Peninsula Pastoral Counseling Center

Ms. Sue Mellen, Assistant Director of Financial and Management Services, addressed the Board

giving a summary of the memorandum included in the Agenda Packet.

As there were no questions for staff, Ms. Jones opened the Public Hearing.

1. Ms. Carol Anderson, 34 Kirkland Court, addressed the Board asking more specific questions

regarding the services offered by the Counseling Center.

As no one else wished to speak, Ms. Jones closed the Public Hearing.

Ms. Jones asked Ms. Mellen to respond to the question raised by the citizen.

Ms. Mellen stated that she does not have specific information on services provided by the Counseling

Center. She stated that it is a registered 501(c) organization and they submitted all of the required financial

information to the County. She stated that they receive support from private contributions and from other

religious organizations in the community.

Mr. McGlennon asked if staff knows who the principals are in the organization.

Ms. Mellen stated that Officers and Directors include the Reverend George Chioros, Reverend John

David Ramsey, Mr. Boyd Duncan, Ms. Carol Seymour, Ms. Gynetha Conway, Ms. Christine Fragapane, Mr.

William P. Gilbert, Reverend Shirley Smith Graham, Mr. Bill Ouzts, Sr., Mr. Junius Penn, Mr. Jim Pierce, Ms.

Susan Piland, Mr. John D. Tressler, Sr., Reverend Rhonda Wheeler, Mr. Robert Beck, Dr. Brian C.

McCormick, M.D., and Reverend Willard Maxwell.

Mr. McGlennon stated that he believes it would be helpful for the Board to know how many properties

within the County meet these criteria so that perhaps the Board could revisit the criteria in the future. He stated

that he noted in the memorandum that the County would not be providing these services if this organization did

not exist. He mentions that only because normally the County supports organizations that provide services that

the County would otherwise need to provide.

- 7 -

Mr. Onizuk echoed the comments made by Mr. McGlennon. He stated that having members of the

organization in attendance at these public hearings would be beneficial so that they may answer any questions

that arise regarding their services.

Mr. Onizuk made a motion to approve the ordinance.

Ms. Jones recognized the motion made by Mr. Onizuk, but stated that the Board can certainly table this

case to allow for more information to be provided by staff.

Mr. McGlennon asked if that would affect anything regarding the timing of the exemption.

Mr. Hill stated that he did not believe so.

Ms. Jones stated that she would be supportive of a deferral.

Mr. Onizuk and Mr. McGlennon voiced their agreement.

Mr. McGlennon made a motion to defer the case until the first regular meeting in January, which

would be January 13, 2015.



2. Case No. SUP-0013-2014. 104 Howard Drive, Grove Barber Shop

Mr. Scott Whyte, Planner II, addressed the Board stating that the applicant has requested a deferral of

the case. The Board’s legislative deferral policy allows for a three-month deferral if approved by the Board.

Mr. Onizuk asked for the reasoning behind the requested deferral.

Mr. Whyte stated that the applicant needs to negotiate a shared parking agreement with the Old Capitol

Lodge which is across the street from the subject property. As of this time, the applicant has not been

successful in negotiating that agreement and is requesting more time to work on that agreement or investigate a

different option for the required parking.

Ms. Jones stated that since the Public Hearing was advertised it needs to be held.

Mr. Whyte addressed that Board giving a summary of the staff report included in the Agenda Packet.

As there were no questions for staff, Ms. Jones opened the Public Hearing.

As no one wished to speak, Ms. Jones stated that the Public Hearing would be left open if the

requested deferral is approved.

Mr. McGlennon made a motion to defer the case until the March 10, 2015, regular meeting and to

leave the Public Hearing open.



- 8 -

3. Case No. SUP-0008-2014. Gilley Enterprises Equipment Storage

Mr. Jose Ribeiro, Planner III, addressed the Board giving a summary of the staff report included in the

Agenda Packet.

Mr. Kennedy clarified that the purpose of this case is to correct a “non-conforming use.”

Mr. Ribeiro stated correct.

Mr. Kennedy questioned if this non-conforming use was discovered when the County was looking to

purchase the PDR and did a site review.

Mr. Ribeiro stated that he did not have that information.

Mr. Kinsman stated that prior to any Purchase of Development Rights (PDR) purchase; a baseline

study of the property is performed. He stated that it is typically done by planning staff and includes a thorough

walk-through of the property and an assessment of what is there and what is not. He stated that he did not have

that baseline study in front of him at this time. He stated that he would be surprised if staff was not aware of

the non-conformity.

Mr. Ribeiro stated that back in 2011 Mr. Gilley did apply for a home-occupation permit. At that time,

Zoning determined that the commercial operations exceed the limits of a home-occupation permit and began

working with Mr. Gilley to bring the commercial operations into compliance and would require a Special Use

Permit (SUP).

Mr. Kennedy stated that it would have been nice to know what exactly was going on with this property

back in 2013 when the PDR was approved for purchase.

Ms. Jones wondered if this issue was one of the reasons that it took 11 months for the PDR purchase to

close.

As there were no other questions for staff, Ms. Jones opened the Public Hearing.

1. Mr. Gregory Davis, of Kaufman and Canoles, attorney for the applicant, addressed the Board

regarding the application. Mr. Davis acknowledged that the baseline data report done prior to the PDR

purchase did report the commercial vehicles stored on the property. It was at that time that staff recommended

the application of an SUP to bring the equipment storage into compliance with the Zoning ordinance. In

reference to the question regarding the closing of the PDR purchase, Mr. Davis stated that part of the delay was

because the Virginia Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (VDACS) got involved as providing

part of the funding.

2. Mr. Joseph Swanenburg, 3026 The Pointe Drive, addressed the Board in support of the case,

stating that Mr. Gilley deserves to be allowed to continue the business that he understood would be allowed

even with the Deed of Conservation easement.

3. Ms. Carol Anderson, 34 Kirkland Court, addressed the Board stating that the storage of heavy

equipment does not seem to be consistent with the Deed of Conservation easement.

4. Mr. William Bauernschmidt, 509 Neck-O-Land Road, addressed the Board stating that the map

included with the presentation should be updated to reflect the proximity to Peleg’s Point.

- 9 -

5. Ms. Rosanne Reddin, 4700 President’s Court, addressed the Board in opposition to the case,

stating that the SUP does not seem to be consistent with the Deed of Conservation easement.

6. Ms. Landra Skelly, 6572 Wiltshire Road, addressed the Board in opposition to the case, stating the

SUP does not conform to the Deed of Conservation easement purchased by the County through the PDR

program.

7. Ms. Sue Sadler, 9929 Mountain Berry Court, addressed the Board regarding the perils of

conservation easements.

As no one else wished to speak to the case, Ms. Jones closed the Public Hearing.

Mr. McGlennon made a motion to adopt the resolution included in the Agenda Packet.

Ms. Jones stated that she does not support conservation easements and the PDR program. She stated

that Mr. Gilley has had this small operation for many years. She stated that she will support this case tonight,

but that she would like property owners to be very cognizant of the restrictions of conservation easements and

PDRs.

Mr. Hipple stated that he knows the Gilley family has been on this property over 100 years. He stated

that he does not want to see this turn into the situation that happened with Martha Boneta. He stated that this

family has had this small commercial operation for many, many years. He believes that this is an opportunity

to have both sides win, where a property is conserved and yet a small local business gets to continue its

operations.

Mr. Onizuk stated that in his understanding, that the conservation easement that has been put on the

property does not prevent the storage of heavy equipment on the property. He stated that he certainly does not

want to overburden this citizen with unnecessary regulation because of a conservation easement. The issue at

hand is that the heavy equipment storage does not comply with the Zoning ordinance, hence the application for

the SUP. He is supportive of the case as the storage of the equipment is not in conflict with the conservation

easement.

Mr. McGlennon stated that for clarification, the conservation easement accomplished significant

purposes including the development of that land. He stated that the land was zoned for a rather large housing

development as well as the land does not drain very well. A significant project was prevented by the easement

that would have had much more serious consequences down the line. He stated that the commercial operation

was in existence prior to the easement, was known at the time of the easement, and really has nothing to do

with the easement. He stated that nothing is being changed regarding the commercial operation, other than to

bring it into conformity.



R E S O L U T I O N

CASE NO. SUP-0008-2014. GILLEY ENTERPRISES EQUIPMENT STORAGE

WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of James City County has adopted by ordinance specific uses that shall

be subject to a Special Use Permit (“SUP”) process; and

- 10 -

WHEREAS, Mr. Gregory Davis has applied for an SUP to allow for the storage of heavy equipment on

property located at 320 Neck-O-Land Road; and

WHEREAS, the proposed project is depicted on the plan prepared by LandTech Resources, Inc., dated May,

5, 2014, and entitled “Exhibit Showing Proposed Parcel 2 of the Properties of REGJAG, L.L.C

& Leigh Ann Gilley” (the “Master Plan”); and

WHEREAS, the proposed project is located on property zoned A-1, General Agricultural, further identified

as James City County Real Estate Tax Map Parcel No. 4740100041; and

WHEREAS, the SUP shall also allow the use of an existing farm road and a 50-foot ingress and egress

easement located on a parcel at 318 Neck-O-Land Road and further identified as James City

County Real Estate Tax Map Parcel No. 4740100040 for ingress/egress of heavy equipment;

and

WHEREAS, approval of this application indicates that the Board of Supervisors finds the proposed use to be

consistent with the uses allowed by the Deed of Easement Agreement made between REGJAG,

L.L.C and James City County and recorded by the Clerk of the Circuit Court for the City of

Williamsburg and County of James City as Instrument No. 140006461 on April 22, 2014; and

WHEREAS, a public hearing was advertised, adjoining property owners notified, and a hearing conducted on

Case No. SUP-0008-2014; and

WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, following its public hearing on November 5, 2014, voted 7-0 to

recommend approval of Case No. SUP-0008-2014.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of James City County, Virginia, does

hereby approve Application No. SUP-0008-2014, as described herein, pursuant to the following

conditions:

1. This SUP shall be valid for the storage of construction equipment and vehicles on an area

of up to 3,200 square feet (the “Proposal”), on a property located at 320 Neck-O-Land

Road and further identified as James City County (JCC) Real Estate Tax Map No.

4740100041, as well as use of an existing farm road and a 50-foot ingress and egress

easement located on a parcel at 318 Neck-O-Land Road and further identified as JCC Real

Estate Tax Map No. 4740100040 for ingress/egress of such construction equipment

(altogether referred to as the “Property”). Development of the Property shall be generally

in accordance with the Master Plan, with such minor changes as the Director of Planning

determines do not change the basic concept or character of the development.

2. No work associated with the Proposal, except for maintenance of equipment and vehicles,

storage, and loading of materials on trucks shall be conducted at the Property.

3. Transportation of equipment to and from the construction equipment storage site shall be

limited to 8 a.m.-5 p.m., Monday through Friday, except for occasional after-hours

transportation related to storm damage work, snow removal jobs, and the like.

4. Storage of equipment and vehicles associated with the Proposal shall be contained within

the 3,200-square-foot area as shown on the Master Plan.

5. No outdoor signage advertising the Proposal shall be allowed on the Property.

6. All new exterior light fixtures, including building lighting, on the Property shall have

recessed fixtures with no lens, bulb, or globe extending below the casing. In addition, a

lighting plan shall be submitted to and approved by the Director of Planning or his

- 11 -

designee, which indicates no glare outside the property lines. All light poles shall not

exceed 20 feet in height unless otherwise approved by the Director of Planning prior to

final site plan approval. “Glare” shall be defined as more than 0.1 foot-candle at the

boundary of the Property or any direct view of the lighting source from the adjoining

properties.

7. An amendment to this SUP application shall be necessary should the number of vehicles

and/or machinery associated with the Proposal exceed the storage capacity of the 3,200-

square-foot area.

8. Prior to final site plan approval, a spill prevention and containment plan which addresses

chemical handling, including but not limited to, oil, diesel and gasoline shall be submitted

to the Engineering and Resource Protection Director and the Fire Chief for their respective

review and approval.

9. No soil disturbance, parking, or storage of equipment or vehicles shall occur within 15 feet

of an RPA buffer or areas designated by the Department of Conservation and Recreation

as containing natural heritage resources.

10. A site plan shall be required for this Proposal. Final approval of the site plan must be

obtained within 18 months of issuance of this SUP, or the SUP shall become void.

11. This SUP is not severable. Invalidation of any word, phrase, clause, sentence, or paragraph

shall invalidate the remainder.

4. Case Nos. Z-0003-2014/MP-0003-2014. The Promenade at John Tyler

Mr. Christopher Johnson, Principal Planner, provided a video presentation of the case and the staff

report included in the Agenda Packet.

Mr. Onizuk stated that the primary concern that he has heard from residents along John Tyler Highway

is traffic. He asked for clarification on the comparison of traffic analysis for commercial development verses

residential development.

Mr. Johnson stated that King’s Way Drive is the primary access for the current residents of LaFontaine

and citizens going to the Riverside medical facility and would serve as the primary access to the proposed

development. Currently, this portion of property being considered would allow for 240,000 square feet of

additional non-residential development by-right under the current zoning. The Institute of Transportation

Engineers Manual would suggest that non-residential development of that size would have significantly more

vehicle trips and impacts associated with it than if it was developed for up to 204 residential units. On that

basis, the only traffic improvement that is necessary for this application is a right hand taper off eastbound

Route 5, John Tyler Highway onto King’s Way Drive. The operational benefit of that right hand taper would

not outweigh the cost associated with removing buffer in that area, would involve the relocation of a significant

amount of utility lines, as well as the traffic signal at that location. Because of this, staff came to the

conclusion that the operational benefit would not justify the expense of including the right hand taper in the

proffer package as a warranted improvement. He stated that the applicant has agreed to the seven page punch-

list of items and repairs required by VDOT in order to bring King’s Way Drive and the proposed Road A into

eligibility for inclusion in the State Secondary Road System.

Mr. Onizuk stated that he has heard concerns that the traffic on John Tyler and Route 199 is already

significant in that area, and this development will only increase the traffic in that area.

Mr. Kennedy stated that many commercial developers have looked at this area over the years, and the

overwhelming reason that no one has gone through with development is because there is not a cut-through to

Route 199. The County has been told that VDOT will not put a cut-through there. That concern over ingress

- 12 -

and egress has essentially stopped commercial development in this area for years. He stated that the traffic

concerns him even if it is only up to 204 residential units. He asked what would prevent the applicant from

deciding not to go through with the commercial space in the plan and just put in more housing.

Mr. Johnson stated that the master plan shows those spaces as commercial. He stated that there could

not be a by-right conversion of those spaces to residential. Changing those spaces would require Board

approval.

Mr. Kennedy questioned the range for the affordable housing in the proposed plan.

Mr. Johnson stated that the Board’s adopted Housing Opportunities Policy speaks to targeted price

ranges at 30%-120% of area median income. In this area, that ranges from a low of $99,875 to a high of

$381,981 which is a very wide range. He stated that legislative applications are judged against this policy to

see if they will proffer 20% of the proposed development to be within this range. This applicant has proffered

that all 204 proposed residential units will fall within that range and be affordable housing.

Mr. McGlennon asked if staff would have given a positive recommendation to any proposed

development that did not include the improvements to King’s Way Drive and Road A.

Mr. Johnson stated that to have any kind of development without the road improvements to make those

roads eligible for the State Secondary Road System would be a challenge among staff.

Mr. McGlennon asked for an indication of which proffers exceeded the County’s expectation in this

proposed development.

Mr. Johnson stated that it would be the improvements to King’s Way Drive and Road A, the drainage

improvements that will contain run-off from Route 199 that is negatively impacting a stream behind the

Winston Terrace Subdivision, and the 100% Affordable/Workforce Housing residential development.

Mr. Kennedy stated that he is concerned about the traffic and the neighboring residents if the shopping

center is revitalized down the road, after this development is built. He also questioned if the existing shopping

center had any proffers regarding architectural guidelines.

Mr. Johnson stated that the existing shopping center has the potential to add an additional 240,000

square feet of commercial development by-right.

Mr. Hipple asked if the project is an overall positive impact to the County.

Mr. Johnson stated that the Staff Report points out both the positives and the negatives of this project.

He stated that it would be a fiscally negative impact as there would be more school children and traffic, but on

balance with the proffers offered by the applicant including to improve the road and the architectural

guidelines, there are more positives than negatives; which lead to staff’s recommendation.

Mr. Hipple stated that from what he has read, this in-fill development seems to be more positive than

negative, which does not seem to happen often with proposed residential developments. He stated that this

proposed development seems to be fitting policies of this Board more so than others in the past.

Mr. Onizuk stated that there is a demand for homes in this price range here in the County. He stated

that this price range will service a good percentage of citizens in the community that fall within the median

income range; however it will not serve those that are at the lower end of the median range.

- 13 -

As there were no other questions for staff at this time, Ms. Jones opened the Public Hearing.

1. Mr. Vernon Geddy, 1177 Jamestown Road, attorney for the applicant, addressed the Board giving

an overview of the proposed project.

Mr. Onizuk asked for clarification of the number of residential units available by-right under the

current zoning.

Mr. Geddy stated that the 198 residential units under the existing mater plan were intended and

allocated to La Fountaine property, which was developed to 160 residential untis.

Mr. Onizuk stated that there is not 198 residential units remaining then.

Mr. Geddy stated correct.

Mr. Hipple asked about the buffer for the current neighborhoods.

Mr. Geddy stated that the property is heavily wooded with 20 foot evergreens at this point. The

applicant intends to maintain a buffer of trees between the neighborhoods and transplant some of the existing

trees into other areas as buffer.

Ms. Jones thanked the applicant and Mr. Geddy for holding the community meetings. She stated that

the impacts on Winston Terrace need to be taken into consideration. She stated that some of the residents of

Winston Terrace have asked about a fence being put in to separate the properties.

Mr. Geddy stated that the applicant has stated all along his willingness to install a fence, his intention

though was to work that out during the site plan stage.

Ms. Jones stated that the other concern she has heard from Winston Terrace is that the pool on the

proposed Master Plan will butt up to the back side of Winston Terrace and will be loud. Ms. Jones stated that

in her opinion the pool would be served to be a more internal amenity on the property.

2. Mr. Russ Porter, 137 Winston Drive, addressed the Board in opposition to the proposed

development because of the impacts on traffic on Jamestown Road and John Tyler Highway.

3. Ms. Elena Whitehead, 104 Hurst Street, addressed the Board in opposition to the proposed

development stating that the price range is really not affordable for those residents that are really in need of

housing.

4. Mr. Kimber Smith, 3051 Heritage Landing Road, addressed the Board in support of the proposed

development as it will serve housing needs for citizens that is not currently available in the County.

5. Joan Lamberson, 307 Queens Crescent, President of the La Fontaine Homeowners Association,

questioned the feasibility of the commercial buildings within the proposed development plan. She stated that

La Fontaine is not overly opposed to the development plan except for the density and the traffic on King’s

Way.

6. Ms. Linda Cifelli, 134 Winston Drive, addressed the Board voicing her concerns over the traffic

impacts of the proposed development.

7. Ms. Carol Anderson, 34 Kirkland Court, addressed the Board voicing her concerns over quality of

- 14 -

life from this proposed development.

8. Mr. Chris Henderson, 101 Keystone, addressed the Board voicing his concerns over traffic

impacts, but stated that the development could help revitalize Williamsburg Crossing Shopping Center.

9. Ms. Rosanne Reddin, 4700 President’s Court, addressed the Board echoing the concerns of density

and traffic increases.

10. Ms. Petra Nadal, 106 Indian Circle, addressed the Board stating that development in the County is

getting to close together and right on top of each other.

11. Ms. Johanna Van De Ven, 104 Winston Drive, addressed the Board requested that the Board defer

action so that all stakeholders could negotiate a better plan.

At 10:10 p.m., Mr. Kennedy requested a brief recess, and Ms. Jones concurred.

At 10:20 p.m., Ms. Jones reconvened the Board.

12. Mr. Jim Whitehead, 4638 Hickory Signpost Road, addressed the Board agreeing with other stated

concerns regarding density.

13. Ms. Anne Penn, 107 Braddock Road, addressed the Board stating that the Marywood Subdivision

has actively building and those homes empty onto Jamestown Road as well. She opposed the development

because of the density and traffic.

As no one else wished to speak, Ms. Jones closed the Public Hearing.

Mr. Onizuk stated that he has done a lot of research into the project and has spoken to many citizens.

He has heard pros and cons, almost equally, from the citizens to whom he has spoken. He stated that he held

a community meeting for the Jamestown District residents that live on the opposite of John Tyler Highway

from the proposed development. He stated that at the end of the discussion, there was a hand vote done with

1/3 present in favor, 1/3 present in opposition, and 1/3 present were neutral. He stated from a land use

perspective this proposal does make sense. He stated that if you reduce the density then the price would go up

which would negate the intention of building affordable housing. He stated this proposal will offer housing

prices that are not normally available in the County. He understands the concerns over traffic, the concerns

over the shopping center, and the concerns over density. He stated that voting “no” will not change the current

traffic issues or help the shopping center. He stated that he has worked very hard to communicate with the

citizens of his district to understand their views on this proposal.

Mr. Kennedy stated that he does not believe that this proposal matches up with the other

neighborhoods around it. He stated that he is not of the opinion that this proposal will help save the shopping

center. He stated that this project will be a fiscal negative for the County. He does not believe that this

proposal is a strong enough project to warrant the rezoning of the property. He stated that if this property came

before the Board with a plan to revitalize the whole property and shopping center, then he would be much

more supportive.

Mr. Hipple stated that this Board and previous Boards have asked for in-fill development, mixed use,

affordability, and this project does all of that. He stated that he is concerned over the buffer to help protect the

other neighborhoods, but the applicant has addressed that issue this evening. He stated that the Board needs to

start laying out more specified direction on what should go in various parts of the County. The applicant has

brought forth a proposal that seems to fit many of the things that the County has asked for. He understands the

- 15 -

concerns over traffic, but this plan will generate less traffic than if it was developed as a commercial center.

He believes this proposal is an overall good fit for the property and the County.

Mr. McGlennon stated that all of the Board members approach these cases from different viewpoints.

He stated that the County has grown rapidly over the last several years and it has not always been done smartly.

He stated that when he looks at the map of this area, it looks too dense. He would like to see a proposal that

scales back the development and density. He stated that businesses are not interested in this parcel, so if it is

not residential, then it more than likely will not be commercial either. He does not believe that this project will

save the shopping center. He believes that this project needs to be reevaluated to fit more into the nature and

character of this community. He would prefer that the developer go back to the drawing board, but if not, then

he will not be supportive of the proposal.

Ms. Jones stated that citizens need to know that the Board does listen to their comments. Everyone

may not always agree, but the citizens are heard. She understands the concerns about the shopping center and

traffic on Jamestown Road, John Tyler Highway, and Route 199. She stated that the County has heard from

businesses and manufacturers that one of the things they look at is how much affordable housing is available

for workers. She stated that the County needs more affordable housing options. She appreciates the history of

Winston Terrace, and understands their concerns. She believes this project will revitalize that corner of Route

199 and John Tyler Highway. She stated her concerns over the density of the buffer and having the pool area

abut the back side of Winston Terrace and asked that the developer take those concerns seriously. She believes

that overall this project will be good for the community.

Mr. Onizuk stated that citizen input in the process early on can greatly impact a project and help

alleviate some of these last minute concerns being raised. Better communication can lead to better plans and

projects as well as fostering relationships with the neighboring communities.

Mr. Hipple made a motion to approve the resolution included in the Agenda Packet.

On a roll call vote, the vote was: AYE: Mr. Hipple, Mr. Onizuk, Ms. Jones, (3). NAY: Mr. Kennedy,

Mr. McGlennon, (2).

R E S O L U T I O N

CASE NOS. Z-0003-2014/MP-0003-2014. THE PROMENADE AT JOHN TYLER

WHEREAS, in accordance with § 15.2-2204 of the Code of Virginia and Section 24-15 of the James City

County Zoning Ordinance, a public hearing was advertised, adjoining property owners notified,

and a hearing scheduled on Case Nos. Z-0003-2014/MP-0003-2014, for rezoning ±24.54 acres

from B-1, General Business, to MU, Mixed Use, with proffers; and

WHEREAS, the proposed project is shown on Master Plan prepared by Clark Nexsen, entitled “The

Promenade at John Tyler, James City County, Virginia” and dated October 6, 2014; and

WHEREAS, the Planning Commission of James City County, following its public hearing on November 5,

2014, recommended approval by a vote of 7 to 0; and

WHEREAS, the properties are located at 5294 John Tyler Highway and can be further identified as James

City County Real Estate Tax Map No. 481220020; 5299 John Tyler Highway and can be further

identified as James City County Real Estate Tax Map No. 481220025; 5303 John Tyler

Highway and can be further identified as James City County Real Estate Tax Map No.

- 16 -

481220026; 5307 John Tyler Highway and can be further identified as James City County Real

Estate Tax Map No. 481220027; 5311 John Tyler Highway and can be further identified as

James City County Real Estate Tax Map No. 481220028; and 5304 John Tyler Highway and

can be further identified as James City County Real Estate Tax Map No. 481220029.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of James City County, Virginia, does

hereby approve Case Nos. Z-0003-2014/MP-0003-2014 and accepts the voluntary proffers.

J. BOARD CONSIDERATION – None

K. PUBLIC COMMENTS

1. Mr. Chris Henderson, 101 Keystone, addressed the Board regarding a presentation done by Mr.

Edward T. McMahon entitled “Nature, Agriculture, Economy and Community Character” available on the

County’s Office of Economic Development webpage.

2. Ms. Sue Sadler, 9929 Mountain Berry Court, addressed the Board regarding the Virginia

Association of Counties.

L. REPORTS OF THE COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR

1. County Administrator’s Report

Mr. Hill thanked the citizens and the Board for their words regarding the passing of Mr. John

McDonald. He congratulated the Department of Parks and Recreation Department for winning two awards

from the Virginia Society of Recreation and Parks, the Rec It Out program won an award for best new

program, and Mid County Park won an award for Best New Park. He reminded citizens that the Board of

Supervisors will be adjourning tonight to its Organizational Meeting on January 2, 2015.

M. READING FILE DOCUMENTS

1. Review of FY 2014 Financial Statements for James City County and James City Service Authority –

Dixon Hughes Goodman, LLP – No Action Necessary

N. BOARD REQUESTS AND DIRECTIVES

Mr. McGlennon thanked staff and Mr. Hill for their support of the family of Mr. McDonald and he

expressed his condolences on the loss of a dear friend. He stated that Mr. McDonald has left the County with a

tremendous legacy.

Mr. Onizuk requested that the Board have a discussion on what the Board wants to have as a growth

tool policy. He stated that staff and the Board currently use the Primary Service Area (PSA) as a growth tool,

but it is in fact a utility policy. He believes that some other growth management plan needs to be in place

instead of using the PSA. He hopes that the Board can have this discussion early next year and in conjunction

with the Planning Commission and Planning staff.

- 17 -

Mr. Kennedy stated that he agrees with Mr. Onizuk, but the PSA needs refinement as well. He stated

that more consistency with zoning would be beneficial as well. If a new growth tool is discussed, all the issues

need to be considered.

Mr. Hipple wished everyone a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year.

Ms. Jones wished everyone a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year as well.

O. CLOSED SESSION - None

P. ADJOURNMENT – until 4 p.m. on January 2, 2015, for the Organizational meeting

Mr. Hipple made a motion to adjourn.



At 11:27 p.m., Ms. Jones adjourned the Board.

________________________________

Bryan J. Hill

Clerk to the Board

120914bos-min

AT AN ORGANIZATIONAL MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY

OF JAMES CITY, VIRGINIA, HELD ON THE 2ND DAY OF JANUARY 2015, AT 4:00 P.M. IN THE

COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER BOARD ROOM, 101 MOUNTS BAY ROAD, JAMES CITY

COUNTY, VIRGINIA.

A. CALL TO ORDER

B. ROLL CALL

Mary K. Jones, Chairman, Berkeley District

Michael J. Hipple, Vice Chairman, Powhatan District

James G. Kennedy, Stonehouse District

Kevin D. Onizuk, Jamestown District

John J. McGlennon, Roberts District

Bryan J. Hill, County Administrator

Adam R. Kinsman, Interim County Attorney

C. ORGANIZATIONAL MEETING

1. Nominations for Chairman and Vice Chairman with Elections to Follow

Ms. Jones nominated Mr. Hipple for the position of Chairman for 2015.

On a roll call vote, the vote was: AYE: Mr. Onizuk, Mr. Hipple, Ms. Jones (3). NAY: Mr. Kennedy,

Mr. McGlennon (2).

Mr. Hipple nominated Mr. Onizuk for the position of Vice-Chairman for 2015.

On a roll call vote, the vote was: AYE: Mr. Onizuk, Mr. Hipple, Ms. Jones (3). NAY: Mr. Kennedy,

Mr. McGlennon (2).

2. Adoption of New Agenda Format and Speaker Rules

Mr. Hill stated that he has been tasked with putting some efficiency into the tasks of the Board and the

County; he is not trying to limit anyone’s ability to speak or participate in meetings. He stated that he has only

been here for a few months, but while sitting at the dais he has noticed some things that can be improved upon

during the meetings. He stated that he has provided the Board with information on how surrounding localities

handle their public comment and public hearing portions of their meetings. He stated that whatever the Board

decides to do is fine with him; he is just providing a different perspective. He stated that residents have the

opportunity to speak and have their views heard at the DRC, the Planning Commission, and the Board of

Supervisors. He believes that many residents are missing out on the opportunity to get their opinions heard

early and get involved in the details by only speaking at Board of Supervisors’ meetings.

Mr. McGlennon stated that in the case of Public Hearings, he believes it is important that

representatives of groups still be given fifteen minutes to speak and fully formulate their position. He would

propose that the time limit for Public Hearings be left at five minutes for individuals and fifteen minutes for

representatives of groups and applicants.

- 2 -

Ms. Jones agreed with the statement by Mr. McGlennon. Ms. Jones stated that she had some concerns

with the Caucus proposed. She believes that if the Board is going to discuss issues, especially ones relating to

Board items, then it should be done during the meeting or the specific Public Hearing. She stated that she is

supportive of maintaining the current agenda format. She believes that it is important for Public Comment to

come before the Consent Calendar so that citizens may comment on those items. She is supportive of

removing the second Board Requests and Directives section on the agenda.

Mr. Kennedy stated that the five and fifteen minute speaker time limits for Public Hearings is

adequate. He believes that a definition needs to be set for groups. He stated that he believes those representing

a group should be required to register with County Administration in advance of the meeting. He supports

starting the meeting at 6 p.m. He is supportive of starting the Public Hearings at 7 p.m. He stated that he has

seen many people, over the last year, leave prior to a particular Public Hearing case being called because it has

gotten to be too late. He believes that the first Public Comment section should be speakers that are specifically

addressing Agenda items, i.e. the Consent Calendar or Board Considerations. The second Public Comment

section can be for citizens to speak about any topic they want. He stated that no one wants to inhibit anyone’s

ability to speak, but he believes the meetings could be more efficient.

Mr. Onizuk stated that his concern is the Public Hearings where attorneys are being paid a lot of

money to sit around and wait for their case to be called. He agreed with needing a definition of a group. He

believes that the business portion of the meeting needs to start at a specific time. He would like to maintain

two Public Comment sections. He would like to see the meeting starting at 6 p.m., with the business portion

beginning at 6:30 or 7 p.m., whichever the Board decides. The first public comment section would be more

structured and geared toward comments specifically relating to an agenda item. He hopes to encourage more

public input and believes that having a more structured meeting will encourage more involvement.

Mr. Hill stated for clarification, the definition of a group would be one person speaking for five or

more people present. He believed that is what he was hearing from the discussion.

Mr. McGlennon stated that he does not agree with having five or more people being present in order

for a representative of the group to speak. He stated if we know an organization represents a segment of the

community, then there is no need for a bunch of them to be present. He agrees that a group should have to

notify County Administration prior to the meeting, perhaps by 4 p.m. the day of the meeting. He stated that

groups that are new or not well known in the community should have to provide a description of their

organization and perhaps a listing of their membership.

Ms. Jones stated that she would prefer to keep the meeting at 7 p.m. to work with parents who have

children and after-school activities.

Mr. Onizuk stated that he agrees with Mr. Kennedy that the County has a significant retired population

who do not like to be on the roads late in the evening. That is why he suggested the earlier start time. He

believes it would serve a broader section of the community.

Mr. McGlennon stated that Work Sessions begin at 4 p.m. and run until 6 p.m., and having a 30-

minute break to switch rooms and shift the mind from one meeting to the next is important.

Mr. Hill stated that Work Sessions could begin at 3:30 p.m.

- 3 -

Mr. McGlennon and Mr. Kennedy agreed with that.

Mr. Hipple stated that it does not seem that anyone wants to really change much of the Agenda format

except removing one of the Board Requests and Directives.

Mr. McGlennon stated that if the first Public Comment section is going to be focused on Agenda

items, he is not sure that starting at 6 p.m. and having a whole hour for those comments is really necessary. He

believes half an hour is sufficient.

Mr. Onizuk stated that if the meeting starts at 6:30 p.m. and the business portion of the meeting begin

at 7 p.m., which would give 30 minutes for that initial Public Comment section.

Mr. Hill stated the agenda could be structured so that the Public Hearings come before the Consent

Calendar, so that the Board could come back to additional Public Comment speakers if necessary. He stated

that he tried to take into consideration those citizens that do not like to be here late at night and driving on the

roads late.

Mr. Hipple proposed letting citizens speak for five minutes once during a meeting. He stated that

citizens could continue to speak twice, at each Public Comment section, for three minutes each time, or speak

one time for five minutes.

Mr. Onizuk stated that he agreed with the idea proposed by Mr. Hipple.

Mr. Kennedy stated that it used to be five minutes and one Public Comment section. The second

Public Comment session was added because citizens were saying that they could not always make it to the

beginning of the meeting. He stated that by having two, citizens still have the opportunity to speak even if they

cannot make it in time for the first section. Plus, citizens also have the ability to speak to each of the Public

Hearing cases.

Ms. Jones stated that the Board has received a lot of communication from citizens about maintaining

the current time limits and the Public Comment sections. She stated that she would not be supportive of

eliminating the second Public Comment section.

Mr. Onizuk believes that having a little more structure to the meetings will encourage more

involvement from citizens. He agreed with the suggestion from Mr. Hipple about doing a five minute Public

Comment speaking limit and then citizens can speak at one or the other.

Mr. Kennedy stated that the Board also needs to make sure that comments during Public Hearings are

germane to the case matter. Comments during Public Comment need to be germane to the work of the Board.

Comments about State and Federal issues should be referred to the proper representative or spokesperson for

those concerns. He stated if it is a School Board issue, then those comments need to be addressed to the

School Board. He stated that the Board needs to take control of this portion of the meeting as well.

Mr. Onizuk agreed with Mr. Kennedy.

Mr. Hill clarified that it is the will of the Board to have the Public Comment time limit set at five

minutes and then citizens can speak at only one of the Public Comment sections.

Most of the Board voiced its agreement.

Mr. Onizuk clarified that if Work Sessions are from 4-6 p.m., then the Regular meeting would start at

6:30 p.m. with the business portion of the meeting beginning promptly at 7 p.m.

- 4 -

The Board voiced its agreement.

Mr. Hill stated that he placed the second Public Comment section after the Reports of the County

Administrator so that citizens could address actions of the Board and his actions as well.

Mr. McGlennon asked that Board Considerations be separated from the Board Requests and Directives

and for it to be placed on the Agenda just after Public Hearings. He stated that citizens that wished to speak to

a Board Consideration would have spoken during the first Public Comment section and would not have to stay

for the second Public Comment section.

Mr. Hipple stated that if this new format does not appear to be working, the Board can always

reevaluate the Agenda format and change it.

Mr. Hill clarified that the business portion of the meeting will begin promptly at 7 p.m.


Mr. Hill stated that the new format would be drawn up and brought back down for final approval

shortly.

Mr. Hipple stated that the Board would return to the discussion and adoption of the new agenda format

and speaker rules.

Mr. Hill distributed to the Board the final draft of the new agenda format for approval. The meeting

will begin at 6:30 p.m., and the business portion of the meeting will begin promptly at 7 p.m.

Mr. Onizuk clarified that public comment time limit would be five minutes per speaker and each

speaker would have one opportunity to speak.

Mr. McGlennon stated that preference will be given to those speaking to an agenda item in the first

Public Comment section. He also stated that representatives of a group will have to notify the Board Secretary

by 4 p.m. the day of the meeting if they wish to speak.

Mr. McGlennon moved the adoption of the new agenda format and the clarified speaker’s rules.

On a roll call vote, the vote was: AYE: Mr. Kennedy, Mr. Hipple, Mr. McGlennon, Mr. Onizuk (4).

NAY: Ms. Jones (1).

3. Establishment of Meeting Dates, Places, and Times

Mr. Hipple questioned if there are any requested amendments to the Board Calendar for 2015.

Mr. McGlennon asked about time for the Budget Work Sessions.

Mr. Hipple asked if there is a preference.

Ms. Jones stated that she would prefer they be at 4 p.m. like regular Work Sessions.

Mr. McGlennon questioned the start time of the Budget Retreat.

Mr. Hill stated 8:30 a.m., if that works for everyone.

Ms. Jones made a motion to adopt the Board Calendar.

- 5 -



4. Commission/Committee Appointments

Ms. Jones clarified that Hampton Roads Transportation Planning Organization (HRTPO) and

Hampton Roads Planning District Commission (HRPDC) are not required to be the Board Chair, but Hampton

Roads Transportation Accountability Committee (HRTAC) does. She stated that she would be happy to

continue serving on HRTPO and HRPDC.

Mr. Hipple stated that he would take over the seat on HRTAC.

Mr. Onizuk stated that he would take over Williamsburg Area Destination Marketing Committee for

Mr. Hipple.

Mr. Kennedy questioned the School Liaison Committee and its continued function.

Mr. Hill stated that he has been in touch with Dr. Constantino and the School Liaison Committee will

be moving forward in some format. He believes it is important to improve communication between the Board

and the School Board.

Mr. Hipple stated that Hampton Roads Economic Development Alliance representative slot will be

open. Mr. Seymour attends these meetings as a staff representative.

Ms. Jones will continue to serve on Hampton Roads Military and Federal Facilities Alliance, HRPDC,

and HRTPO.

Mr. Onizuk and Mr. Hipple will serve on the School Liaison Committee.

Mr. Kennedy will continue to serve on the Historic Triangle Collaborative, Agricultural and Forestal

District Advisory Committee, and the Farmers Advisory Committee.

Mr. McGlennon will take over as the Board Liaison to the Economic Development Authority.

Mr. Onizuk will continue to serve on the Greater Peninsula Workforce Development Consortium, the

Peninsula Council for Workforce Development, the Williamsburg Land Conservancy, and the Greater

Williamsburg Area Chamber and Tourism Alliance.

Mr. McGlennon will continue to serve on the Virginia Peninsula Regional Jail Authority, the High

Growth Coalition, and Williamsburg Area Medical Assistance Corporation.

The Regional Issues Committee representative slot will be open. The Board will consider it at a later

date.


- 6 -

5. Seating Assignments

The Board drew numbers for seating assignments for the year. The Chair is always at seat one.

Mr. Kennedy is at seat two, Mr. Onizuk is at seat three, Mr. McGlennon is at seat four, and Ms. Jones

is at seat five.

6. Adoption of Rules of Order

Mr. Kinsman reviewed the resolution to Adopt the Rules of Order and noted that the start time of the

meeting would be changed to 6:30 p.m.

Mr. McGlennon made a motion to approve the resolution with the time amendment that was stated.



R E S O L U T I O N

ORGANIZATIONAL MEETING OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS

WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of James City County, Virginia, is required by State law to organize

at the first meeting in January.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of James City County, Virginia, that

the following rules shall apply for the year 2015:

1. Regular meetings of the Board shall be held as shown on the attached 2015 calendar, in

the Board Room of the James City County Government Center. The meeting time shall be

6:30 p.m.

Work session meetings of the Board shall be held at 4:00 p.m., Tuesday before the second

regular meeting in the Board Room of the James City County Government Center.

2. The Board of Supervisors agrees to follow Robert’s Rules of Order, Newly Revised 10th

Edition, October 2000, and more specifically, the provisions which pertain to the

“Conduct of Business in Boards,” at page 469 et. seq., in particular, the “Procedure in

Small Boards” as follows:

a. Members are not required to obtain the floor before making motions or speaking,

which they can do while seated.

b. Motions need not be seconded.

c. There is no limit to the number of times a member can speak to a question, and

motions to close or limit debate generally should not be entertained.

d. Informal discussion of a subject is permitted while no motion is pending.

e. The Chairman can speak in discussion without rising or leaving the chair and can

make motions and votes on all questions.

3. In addition, the Board agrees to the following:

a. A motion to rescind shall not be in order in a land use decision involving a rezoning or

a special use permit. A motion to reconsider such a decision must be made at the

- 7 -

same meeting the original decision is made by the Board.

b. Should it be necessary to cancel an advertised Board of Supervisors meeting due to

weather or other conditions, the meeting shall be continued forty-eight hours to the

same time and place.

7. Tentative Work Session Agenda

Mr. Hipple stated that no action is necessary, just for the Board’s information.

D. BOARD CONSIDERATIONS

1. Bank Resolution Amendment

Mr. McGlennon made a motion to adopt the resolution.



R E S O L U T I O N

BANK RESOLUTION AMENDMENT

WHEREAS, James City County (JCC) has multiple financial institutions designated as depositories for the

JCC funds and that funds so deposited may be withdrawn upon a check, draft, note, or order of

the Board of Supervisors.

BE IT RESOLVED that all checks, drafts, notes, or orders drawn against said accounts be signed by two of

the following:

Jennifer D. Tomes Interim Treasurer

OR

Bryan J. Hill County Administrator

OR

Adam R. Kinsman Assistant County Administrator

OR

Barbara S. Miller Senior Accountant

whose signatures shall be duly certified to these financial institutions and that no checks, drafts,

notes, or orders drawn against these financial institutions shall be valid unless so signed.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that these financial institutions are hereby authorized and directed to honor

and pay any checks, drafts, notes or orders so drawn, whether such checks, drafts, notes, or

orders be payable to the order of any such persons signing and/or countersigning said checks,

drafts, notes or orders, or any of such persons in their individual capacities or not and whether

such checks, drafts, notes, or orders are deposited to the individual credit of the person so

signing and/or countersigning said checks, drafts, notes, or orders, or the individual credit of any

of the other officers or not. For cash investment purposes, the institution is also authorized and

- 8 -

directed to honor requests for the transfer of money from savings to checking, checking to

savings, and transfers from checking or savings to purchase Certificates of Deposit, repurchase

agreements or to make other lawful investments when requested by Jennifer D. Tomes, Interim

Treasurer, or Barbara S. Miller, Senior Accountant. This resolution shall continue in force and

these financial institutions may consider the facts concerning the holders of said offices,

respectively, and their signatures to be and continue as set forth in the Certificate of the

Secretary, accompanying a copy of this resolution when delivered to these financial institutions

or in any similar subsequent certificate, until written notice to the contrary is duly served on

these financial institutions.

E. CLOSED SESSION

F. BOARD REQUESTS AND DIRECTIVES

Mr. McGlennon stated that he wanted to notify the Board of a discussion going on in Kingsmill

regarding the KSA. Apparently there will be a shift in that organization to a resident majority, but as part of

the shift there is language that the Board must approve future rezonings. He stated that he wanted the residents

of Kingsmill, and other organizations too, to understand that the Board of Supervisors cannot be bound by such

actions of private organizations. He stated that this type of change is concerning and inadvisable.

Mr. Hipple stated that he is looking forward to working with the Administration and staff as the

Chairman this year. He thanked Ms. Jones for all her hard work the previous year. He requested that each

Board make a list of five items that they would like to see move forward. He stated that then the Board can

work together to see some of those items moved forward. He stated that the Board members may use the Law

Library in Building D for any meetings with groups or individually. He stated that it can be scheduled through

the Board Secretary. He stated that he would like to meet with each Board member on Monday, January 5,

one-on-one to discuss ideas and begin working together.

Ms. Jones stated that she looks forward to the leadership of Mr. Hipple and thanked him for all of his

hard work in the community.

G. ADJOURNMENT

Mr. McGlennon made a motion to adjourn until 6:30 p.m. on January 13, 2015, for the Regular

Meeting.



________________________________

Bryan J. Hill

Clerk to the Board

010215bosorg-min


ITEM SUMMARY

DATE: 1/27/2015


FROM: Shirley Anderson, Animal Control Supervisor

SUBJECT: Appointment of Animal Control Officer

Appointment of Animal Control Officer

ATTACHMENTS:Description TypeMemo Cover MemoResolution Resolution




M E M O R A N D U M

DATE: January 27, 2015


FROM: Shirley Anderson, Animal Control Supervisor

SUBJECT: Appointment of Animal Control Officer

Attached for your consideration is a resolution appointing Ms. Flora Soule as Animal Control Officer for

James City County. Board appointment is necessary in order for Ms. Soule to enforce State and County

animal laws.

Staff recommends adoption of the attached resolution.

SA/gb

Appt-AnimalOff-mem

Attachment

R E S O L U T I O N

APPOINTMENT OF ANIMAL CONTROL OFFICER

WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of James City County is authorized to appoint Animal Control

Officers; and

WHEREAS, the Animal Control Officers are vested with the authority to enforce the animal laws in the

County pursuant to Virginia Code Sections 3.2-6555, et. seq., and James City County Code

Section 3-2.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Board of Supervisors of James City County, Virginia,

that Ms. Flora Soule is hereby appointed Animal Control Officer for James City County,

Virginia.

____________________________________

Michael J. Hipple

Chairman, Board of Supervisors

ATTEST:

________________________________

Bryan J. Hill

Clerk to the Board

Adopted by the Board of Supervisors of James City County, Virginia, this 27th day of

January, 2015.

Appt-AnimalOff-res

VOTES

AYE NAY ABSTAIN

JONES ____ ____ ____

MCGLENNON ____ ____ ____

ONIZUK ____ ____ ____

KENNEDY ____ ____ ____

HIPPLE ____ ____ ____


ITEM SUMMARY

DATE: 1/27/2015


FROM: Darryl Cook, Capital Projects Coordinator

SUBJECT: Contract Award – Jamestown Beach Park Phase II Improvements – $690,632

Contract Award – Jamestown Beach Park Phase II Improvements – $690,632


REVIEWERS:Department Reviewer Action DateBoard Secretary Fellows, Teresa Approved 1/13/2015 - 4:03 PMBoard Secretary Approved 1/20/2015 - 9:45 AMBoard Secretary Fellows, Teresa Approved 1/20/2015 - 11:43 AMPublication Management Colonna, Tina Approved 1/20/2015 - 12:44 PMBoard Secretary Fellows, Teresa Approved 1/20/2015 - 1:23 PMBoard Secretary Approved 1/20/2015 - 1:25 PMBoard Secretary Fellows, Teresa Approved 1/20/2015 - 1:33 PM



M E M O R A N D U M



FROM: Darryl E. Cook, Capital Projects Coordinator

SUBJECT: Contract Award – Jamestown Beach Park Phase II Improvements – $690,632

The County is ready to complete Phase II improvements to Jamestown Beach Park as previously approved by

the Board of Supervisors through acceptance of Land and Water Conservation grant funds and previously

appropriated Capital funds.

The attached map highlights the proposed improvements. Proposed improvements under this contract include

the upgrading of an existing road to serve as the new entrance, an Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)

trail/walkway, additional parking, the construction of a pier to serve as the outlet for the extension of the storm

drain system and provide ADA access for the beach, and the installation of restroom facilities. Shoreline

restoration and stabilization of the second beach was previously completed under a separate contract.

The following five firms submitted bids and were considered for contract award:

Firm Bid Amount

David A. Nice Builders, Inc. $ 713,900

Caspian Construction LLC 821,340

Evans Construction, Inc. 899,099

Southwood Building Systems, Inc. 1,324,204

Conrad Brothers of Virginia 1,395,667

David A. Nice Builders, Inc. has done satisfactory work for James City County in the past and was determined

to be the lowest responsive bidder. The County negotiated a final bid amount of $690,632 and funds are

available as previously appropriated by the Board of Supervisors. The attached resolution would authorize the

contract award to David A. Nice Builders, Inc. for completion of the Jamestown Beach Park Phase II

improvements.

Staff recommends approval of the attached resolution.

DEC/nb

CA-JBeachPhaseII-mem

Attachments

R E S O L U T I O N

CONTRACT AWARD – JAMESTOWN BEACH PARK PHASE II IMPROVEMENTS – $690,632

WHEREAS, funds are available in Special Projects/Grant Fund and the Capital Improvement Account;

and

WHEREAS, five bids were considered for award and David A. Nice Builders, Inc. was the lowest

responsive and responsible bidder.


hereby awards the contract for Jamestown Beach Park Phase II Improvements to David A.

Nice Builders, Inc. in the amount of $690,632.

____________________________________

Michael J. Hipple


ATTEST:

________________________________

Bryan J. Hill

Clerk to the Board


January, 2015.

CA-JBeachPhaseII-res

AYE NAY ABSTAIN

KENNEDY ____ ____ ____

HIPPLE ____ ____ ____

MCGLENNON ____ ____ ____

ONIZUK ____ ____ ____

JONES ____ ____ ____


ITEM SUMMARY

DATE: 1/27/2015


FROM: Darryl Cook, Capital Projects Coordinator

SUBJECT: Contract Award - Phrase III, Jamestown Beach Park Paddle Craft Launch Site and Beach Stabilization -$284,891

Contract Award - Phrase III, Jamestown Beach Park Paddle Craft Launch Site and Beach Stabilization - $284,891





M E M O R A N D U M DATE: January 27, 2015 TO: The Board of Supervisors FROM: Darryl Cook, Capital Projects Coordinator SUBJECT: Contract Award - Phrase III, Jamestown Beach Park Paddle Craft Launch Site and Beach

Stabilization - $284,891 Over the years, this popular shoreline segment has been adversely impacted by wave attack and major storm events that have resulted in a loss of usable beach frontage. The restoration of this beachfront supports the County’s goal to plan responsibly for the needs of a growing, diverse community. This project also directly supports the “Shaping Our Shores” Master Plan for Jamestown Beach by “re-nourishing it and providing a stable shoreline and predominant beach amenity for the park.” The Board of Supervisors previously approved $375,000 in funding for this project with the adoption of the FY 2014 Capital Budget.

The work for Phase III consists of stabilizing the last 450 linear feet of shoreline at the beach and

includes the installation of one 135-foot offshore breakwater and one 95-foot stone spur attached to the shore at the north end of the beach. Both of these structures will be partially constructed using recycled and resized concrete rubble that already exists on-site. Sand-fill beach nourishment will follow the installation of the breakwater and spur. In addition, 500 linear feet of the beach shoreline will be stabilized and improved by removing concrete rubble from the slope adjacent to the beach and then grading and planting the slopes to make them stable. Finally, an existing access road to the beach at the north end of the beach will be improved to serve as a paddle craft access and launch site. A two-step Invitation for Bids for Jamestown Beach Park Paddle Craft Launch Site and Beach Restoration was publicly advertised. All bidders submitted a Technical Bid Form and a Bid Price Form in two separate sealed envelopes. On the Technical Bid Form, bidders had to document adequate experience, sufficient equipment, financial (including surety), and personnel resources to complete the job. Bidders were required to have completed a minimum of three shoreline stabilization jobs of similar size and type. The Technical Bid Forms were opened first and the qualifications were evaluated without pricing to determine if the bidder had the required experience and resources. The Technical Bid Forms were evaluated by the County’s Project Managers and Purchasing staff. If the bidder met the requirements, the Bid Price Form was opened. If the bidder did not meet the requirements, the Bid Price Form was returned to the bidder unopened. Three firms submitted a Technical Bid Form and a Bid Price Form. One firm did not meet the experience requirements: Ryan Construction Company, Inc. Two firms met the requirements and their bids are listed below: Firm Amount

Henry S. Branscome, LLC $442,571 Water’s Edge Construction 284,891

Contract Award - Phrase III, Jamestown Beach Park Paddle Craft Launch Site and Beach Stabilization - $284,891 January 27, 2015 Page 2 Water’s Edge Construction has been determined to be the lowest responsive and responsible bidder. The bid amount of $284,891 is consistent with the project estimate and funds are available in the Capital Improvement account for this award.

Attached is a resolution authorizing the contract award to Water’s Edge Construction for Jamestown Beach Park Paddle Craft Launch Site and Beach Stabilization. Staff recommends approval of the attached resolution. DEC/gb CA-JtBeachPh3-mem Attachments

R E S O L U T I O N

CONTRACT AWARD - PHRASE III, JAMESTOWN BEACH PARK PADDLE CRAFT

LAUNCH SITE AND BEACH STABILIZATION - $284,891

WHEREAS, funds are available in the Capital Improvements Project fund; and

WHEREAS, two bids were considered for award and Water’s Edge Construction was the lowest

responsive and responsible bidder.


hereby authorizes the contract award in the amount of $284,891 to Water’s Edge

Construction for Phase III, Jamestown Beach Park Paddle Craft Launch site and Beach

Stabilization.

___________________________________

Michael J. Hipple

Chair, Board of Supervisors

ATTEST:

________________________________

Bryan J. Hill

Clerk to the Board


January 2015.

CA-JtBeachPh3-res

VOTES

AYE NAY ABSTAIN

JONES ____ ____ ____

MCGLENNON ____ ____ ____

ONIZUK ____ ____ ____

KENNEDY ____ ____ ____

HIPPLE ____ ____ ____


ITEM SUMMARY

DATE: 1/27/2015


FROM: Ryan Ashe, Interim Fire Chief

SUBJECT: Grant Award - Office of Emergency Medical Services (OEMS) Rescue Squad Assistance Fund (RSAF) -$32,000

Grant Award - Office of Emergency Medical Services (OEMS) Rescue Squad Assistance Fund (RSAF) - $32,000





M E M O R A N D U M



FROM: Ryan Ashe, Interim Fire Chief

SUBJECT: Grant Award - Office of Emergency Medical Services (OEMS) Rescue Squad Assistance

Fund (RSAF) - $32,000

The James City County Fire Department (JCCFD) has been awarded a Rescue Squad Assistance Fund (RSAF)

grant in the amount of $32,000 from the Commonwealth of Virginia Department of Health, Office of

Emergency Medical Services (OEMS).

The funds are to be used for the purchase of one Monitor/Defibrillator with 12 lead EKG.

Starting in the spring of 2012, we began a program of upgrading our EMS equipment to the Zoll X Series

Monitor/Defibrillator in order to adopt new technology, minimize down time and maintenance costs, and

upgrade equipment to be able to more effectively and securely transmit 12 leads using WiFi devices.

JCCFD maintains Monitor/Defibrillators on all Advanced Life Support (ALS) licensed vehicles, other response

vehicles, and for training purposes for a total of 24 units. Through previous RSAF grants, we have purchased

seven Zoll X series units which enabled us to outfit seven of eight ambulances with up-to-date units.

This grant funds the replacement of one older unit with an up-to-date unit to be placed on the remaining eighth

ambulance without an X series unit.

The grant requires a 50 percent local match of $16,000, which is budgeted in the FY 2015 Grants Match

account in the General Fund budget.

JCCFD will also purchase required accessories, including cables, a battery, and a cuff kit, using non-grant

funds.

Staff recommends adoption of the attached resolution to appropriate funds.

RA/nb

GA-RSAF2015-mem

Attachment

R E S O L U T I O N

GRANT AWARD - OFFICE OF EMERGENCY MEDICAL SERVICES (OEMS)

RESCUE SQUAD ASSISTANCE FUND (RSAF) - $32,000

WHEREAS, the James City County Fire Department has been awarded a Rescue Squad Assistance Fund

(RSAF) grant in the amount of $32,000 from the Commonwealth of Virginia Department of

Health, Office of Emergency Medical Services (OEMS); and

WHEREAS, the funds are to be used for the purchase of one Monitor/Defibrillator with 12 lead EKG;

and

WHEREAS, the grant requires a 50 percent local match of $16,000, which is budgeted in the FY 2015

Grants Match account.


hereby authorizes the following appropriation to the Special Projects/Grants fund:

Revenues:

OEMS-RSAF-AED $16,000

Transfer from General Fund 16,000

Total $32,000

Expenditure:

OEMS-RSAF-AED $32,000

____________________________________

Michael J. Hipple


ATTEST:

________________________________

Bryan J. Hill

Clerk to the Board


January, 2015.

GA-RSAF2015-res

VOTES

AYE NAY ABSTAIN

JONES ____ ____ ____

MCGLENNON ____ ____ ____

ONIZUK ____ ____ ____

KENNEDY ____ ____ ____

HIPPLE ____ ____ ____


ITEM SUMMARY

DATE: 1/27/2015


FROM: Adam R. Kinsman, Interim County Attorney

SUBJECT: Agreement between the Virginia Department of Transportation and the Board of Supervisors of James CityCounty, Virginia

Agreement between the Virginia Department of Transportation and the Board of Supervisors of James City County,Virginia





M E M O R A N D U M




SUBJECT: Agreement between the Virginia Department of Transportation and the Board of Supervisors

of James City County, Virginia

In 2003 the County entered into an agreement with the Virginia Department of Transportation (“VDOT”)

which permits the County or its agents to remove signs illegally placed in the VDOT right-of-way. In 2013 the

County entered into a new agreement with VDOT based on amendments to the Virginia Code. The agreement

must be updated to reflect recodification of the pertinent section of the Virginia Code as well as a change to the

disposition of fees. Under the new agreement, the County will receive all penalties and costs. A copy of the

new agreement is attached. The civil penalty that may be assessed for each illegal sign is set by the Virginia

Code and remains at $100 for each occurrence.

I recommend that the Board adopt the attached resolution authorizing the County Administrator to enter into

the attached agreement with VDOT regarding the removal of illegal signs placed in the VDOT right-of-way

and to execute subsequent amendments to the agreement as necessary.

ARK/nb

VDOTAgree15-mem

Attachments

R E S O L U T I O N

AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

AND THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF JAMES CITY COUNTY, VIRGINIA

WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of James City County, Virginia (the “Board”) has the authority to

enter into an agreement with the Virginia Department of Transportation (“VDOT”)

pursuant to Section 33.2-1224 of the Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended (the “Virginia

Code”); and

WHEREAS, the Board desires to enter into an agreement with VDOT to enforce the provisions of

Section 33.2-1224 of the Virginia Code and to collect the penalties and costs provided

therein.


does hereby authorize the County Administrator to execute those documents necessary to

enter into an agreement and any amendments thereof with VDOT to enforce the provisions

of Section 33.2-1224 of the Virginia Code and to collect the penalties and costs provided

therein.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors designates the Zoning Administrator to be

the County’s responsible party for enforcement of the agreement.

____________________________________

Michael J. Hipple


ATTEST:

________________________________

Bryan J. Hill

Clerk to the Board


January, 2015.

VDOTAgree15-res

VOTES

AYE NAY ABSTAIN

JONES ____ ____ ____

MCGLENNON ____ ____ ____

ONIZUK ____ ____ ____

KENNEDY ____ ____ ____

HIPPLE ____ ____ ____


ITEM SUMMARY

DATE: 1/27/2015


FROM: A. Vaughn Poller, Housing and Community Development Administrator

SUBJECT: Revised Administrative Plan for the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program

Revised Administrative Plan for the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program





M E M O R A N D U M



FROM: A. Vaughn Poller, Housing and Community Development Administrator

SUBJECT: Revised Administrative Plan for the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program

The James City County Office of Housing and Community Development (OHCD) is

designated as a Public Housing Agency VA-041 (PHA) authorized to operate the Section 8

Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) Program within James City County. The PHA must adopt an

Administrative Plan stating local policy on matters for which Federal law and Housing and

Urban Development (HUD) regulations give discretion to the PHA.

The Administrative Plan adopted by the Board of Supervisors on June 27, 2006 needs to be

revised to incorporate and respond to changes in Federal policies and regulations related to

operation and funding of the HCV Program. I would like to bring to your attention three

changes that are likely the most impactful in the Revised Administrative Plan.

1. OHCD proposes to revise the method of calculating the voucher size. Currently, the number

of bedrooms in a rental unit supported by the voucher is determined by family size. The

revised Administrative Plan will size the voucher so that it will support one bedroom for

every two family members.

2. The utility allowance paid to the household will also be adjusted so that instead of being

determined by family size, it will be based on the size of the voucher.

3. Currently, no one is eligible for a voucher if they have any felonies on their criminal history

in the past 10 years. This is one of the more restrictive policies in the region and is

considered a housing barrier. OHCD proposes to reduce the period to five years to come

closer to the local average of three to five years.

As required by HUD policy, the revised Administrative Plan has been available for public review

for more than 45 days; OHCD held a public meeting to receive comments on the revisions on

January 8, 2015. No comments were received.

Staff recommends adoption of the attached resolution to approve the revised Administration Plan

for the HCV Program.

AVP/gb

RevSec8Pro-mem

Attachment

R E S O L U T I O N

REVISED ADMINISTRATIVE PLAN FOR THE SECTION 8

HOUSING CHOICE VOUCHER PROGRAM

WHEREAS, the James City County Office of Housing and Community Development (OHCD) is a

designated Public Housing Agency VA-041 (PHA) authorized to operate the Section 8

Housing Choice Voucher (HCV) Program within James City County; and

WHEREAS, a PHA which operates the Section 8 Housing Choice Voucher Program must adopt an

Administrative Plan which states local policies on matters for which the PHA has

discretion; and

WHEREAS, OHCD has prepared the Administrative Plan and provided opportunities for public

review and comment in accordance with U.S. Department of Housing and Urban

Development (HUD) regulations.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of Supervisors of James City County,

Virginia, hereby approves the Administrative Plan for the Section 8 HCV Program

dated January 27, 2015, authorizes the submission of the Administrative Plan to HUD,

and authorizes the Chairman of the Board of Supervisors to execute the PHA

Certifications of Compliance with the PHA Plan and Related Regulations form.

____________________________________

Michael J. Hipple


ATTEST:

________________________________

Bryan J. Hill

Clerk to the Board


January 2015.

RevSec8Pro-res

VOTES

AYE NAY ABSTAIN

JONES ____ ____ ____

MCGLENNON ____ ____ ____

ONIZUK ____ ____ ____

KENNEDY ____ ____ ____

HIPPLE ____ ____ ____


ITEM SUMMARY

DATE: 1/27/2015


FROM: Suzanne Mellen, Director of Financial and Management Services

SUBJECT: Resolution of the Board of Supervisors of James City County, Virginia, Declaring its Intention to Reimburse Itselffrom the Proceeds of one or more Financings for Certain Costs of Capital Improvements

Resolution of the Board of Supervisors of James City County, Virginia, Declaring its Intention to Reimburse Itselffrom the Proceeds of one or more Financings for Certain Costs of Capital Improvements





M E M O R A N D U M



FROM: Suzanne R. Mellen, Director of Financial and Management Services

SUBJECT: Resolution of the Board of Supervisors of James City County, Virginia, Declaring its

Intention to Reimburse Itself from the Proceeds of one or more Financings for Certain Costs

of Capital Improvements

The attached resolution was prepared by the County’s bond counsel, Lisa Williams of the law firm McGuire

Woods LLP, and establishes a reimbursement date for the middle school project on the James Blair site.

In the time period between now and a bond issue, the Schools will begin to hire design firms and engineers for

the project.

With the attached resolution the County could reimburse itself, under Federal Treasury regulations, with bond

proceeds when bonds are issued.

Staff recommends approval of the attached resolution.

SRM/nb

CapImpReimburse-mem

Attachment

R E S O L U T I O N

RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF JAMES CITY COUNTY, VIRGINIA,

DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO REIMBURSE ITSELF FROM THE PROCEEDS OF ONE OR

MORE FINANCINGS FOR CERTAIN COSTS OF CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS

WHEREAS, James City County, Virginia (the “County”) has determined that it may be necessary or

desirable to advance money to pay the costs (“Expenditures”) of certain capital

improvements for school projects, including, but not limited to, a new middle school

(collectively, the “Project”).


that:

1. The Board of Supervisors (the “Board”) adopts this declaration of official intent under

Treasury Regulations Section 1.150-2.

2. On the date each Expenditure is made, it will be a capital expenditure (or would be

with a proper election) under general federal income tax principles or will otherwise

comply with the requirements of Treasury Regulations Section 1.150-2(d)(3).

3. The Board reasonably expects to reimburse advances made or to be made by the

County to pay the costs of the Project from the proceeds of one or more issues of debt,

which may include tax-exempt bonds. The maximum amount of financing expected

to be issued for the Project is $30 million.

4. Notwithstanding the foregoing, this resolution does not authorize or require the actual

issuance of any bonds or other issues of debt, any such issuance being subject to

subsequent approval by the Board.

5. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption. As provided under

Treasury Regulations Section 1.150-2(d)(3), the official intent declared by this

resolution covers qualifying original Expenditures, made at any time after the date 60

days before the effective date of this resolution.

____________________________________

Michael J. Hipple


ATTEST:

________________________________

Bryan J. Hill

Clerk to the Board


January, 2015.

CapImpReimburse-res

VOTES

AYE NAY ABSTAIN

JONES ____ ____ ____

MCGLENNON ____ ____ ____

ONIZUK ____ ____ ____

KENNEDY ____ ____ ____

HIPPLE ____ ____ ____

AGENDA ITEM NO. H.1.

ITEM SUMMARY

DATE: 1/27/2015



SUBJECT: Charter Amendment § 7.4 Division of Planning of the James City County Charter

Charter Amendment § 7.4 Division of Planning of the James City County Charter


REVIEWERS:Department Reviewer Action DateBoard Secretary Fellows, Teresa Approved 1/15/2015 - 8:50 AMBoard Secretary Approved 1/15/2015 - 11:18 AMBoard Secretary Fellows, Teresa Approved 1/15/2015 - 12:04 PMPublication Management Colonna, Tina Approved 1/15/2015 - 1:23 PMBoard Secretary Fellows, Teresa Approved 1/15/2015 - 1:43 PMBoard Secretary Approved 1/20/2015 - 9:45 AMBoard Secretary Fellows, Teresa Approved 1/20/2015 - 11:43 AM



M E M O R A N D U M




SUBJECT: Charter Amendment § 7.4 Division of Planning of the James City County Charter

The Board of Supervisors recently adopted the County’s 2015 Legislative Program, which requested the

following Charter amendment:

Item No. 1-3. James City County requests an amendment of § 7.4 of its Charter to remove the provision

stating that the Director of Planning is appointed by, and serves at the pleasure of, the

Director of Development Management.

The Charter amendment would situate the director of planning more similarly to all other non-executive staff

level employees. In addition to requesting that the General Assembly make the amendment, the Virginia Code

further requires that the Board hold a public hearing on the proposed change.

A public hearing has been advertised in this matter to seek public input, as required by Va. Code § 15.2-202.

Following the public hearing, I recommend adoption of the attached resolution.

ARK/nb

CharterAmend-mem

Attachments

R E S O L U T I O N

AMENDMENT TO THE JAMES CITY COUNTY CHARTER

WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors adopted the County’s 2015 Legislative Program and an

amendment to the County’s Charter in Item No. 1-3; and

WHEREAS, Item No. 1-3 seeks to amend the County’s Charter to delete a phrase from § 7.4. Division of

planning, to align the director of planning with similar staff positions in other County

departments; and

WHEREAS, following a public hearing, the Board of Supervisors is of the opinion that the County’s

Charter should be amended.


that having hereby conducted a public hearing on the issue, the General Assembly is

requested to make the following amendment to the Charter of the County of James City,

Virginia:

§ 7.4. Division of planning.

The planning division shall be composed of a director of planning and such employees as

the board of supervisors may determine. The planning division shall perform such

responsibilities as are imposed by general law and as may be assigned by the planning

commission and board of supervisors. The director of planning shall have immediate

direction and control of the division, shall be appointed by the manager of development

management and shall serve subject to the same terms and conditions as are applicable to

other department heads. The director of planning shall report to the manager of

development management.

____________________________________

Michael J. Hipple


ATTEST:

________________________________

Bryan J. Hill

Clerk to the Board


January, 2015.

CharterAmend-res

VOTES

AYE NAY ABSTAIN

JONES ____ ____ ____

MCGLENNON ____ ____ ____

ONIZUK ____ ____ ____

KENNEDY ____ ____ ____

HIPPLE ____ ____ ____


ITEM SUMMARY

DATE: 1/27/2015



SUBJECT: Authorization of Sale of Property Located at 7849 Church Lane

Authorization of Sale of Property Located at 7849 Church Lane





M E M O R A N D U M




SUBJECT: Authorization of Sale of Property Located at 7849 Church Lane

Attached is a resolution authorizing the County Administrator to sell the parcel located at 7849 Church Lane

adjacent to Fire Station 1 on Forge Road and further identified as James City County Real Estate Tax Map

Parcel No. 1230100031 (the “Property”). The Property is 3.03 acres, is currently zoned A-1, General

Agricultural and is assessed for $295,400. The County acquired the Property in June 2013 in order to facilitate

construction at Fire Station 1 to maintain services and avoid temporarily moving the facility. The County

purchased the Property with the intention of selling it after construction of Fire Station 1 in order to recoup

these costs.

In response to a Request for Qualifications, Welcome Home Realty was engaged by the County to sell the

property. Following receipt of a number of bids, the highest and best bid was received by Coleman-Elder,

LLC, which offered to purchase the Property for $285,000 in as-is condition. Following a public hearing, I

recommend adoption of the attached resolution authorizing and directing the County Administrator to execute

any and all documents necessary to convey the Property to Coleman-Elder, LLC.

ARK/nb

CrawfordHSale-mem

Attachment

R E S O L U T I O N

AUTHORIZATION OF CONVEYANCE OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT 7849 CHURCH LANE

WHEREAS, the County is the owner of certain real property located at 7849 Church Lane and further

identified as Parcel No. 1230100031 on the James City County Real Estate Tax Map (the

“Property”); and

WHEREAS, the Property was purchased to facilitate construction at Fire Station 1 and is no longer

needed; and

WHEREAS, Coleman-Elder, LLC desires to purchase the Property; and

WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of James City County, following a public hearing, is of the

opinion that it is in the public interest to convey the Property to Coleman-Elder, LLC for

$285,000 in as-is condition.


hereby authorizes and directs the County Administrator to execute any and all documents

necessary to convey the Property to Coleman-Elder, LLC.

____________________________________

Michael J. Hipple


ATTEST:

________________________________

Bryan J. Hill

Clerk to the Board


January, 2015.

CrawfordHSale-res

VOTES

AYE NAY ABSTAIN

JONES ____ ____ ____

MCGLENNON ____ ____ ____

ONIZUK ____ ____ ____

KENNEDY ____ ____ ____

HIPPLE ____ ____ ____


ITEM SUMMARY

DATE: 1/27/2015



SUBJECT: Authorization of Sale of a Portion of Property Located at 3135 Forge Road

Authorization of Sale of a Portion of Property Located at 3135 Forge Road





M E M O R A N D U M




SUBJECT: Authorization of Sale of a Portion of Property Located at 3135 Forge Road

Attached is a resolution authorizing the County Administrator to sell a portion of the parcel located at 3135

Forge Road and further identified as James City County Real Estate Tax Map Parcel No. 1230100027. The

parcel at 3135 Forge Road is currently zoned PL, Public Lands, and is assessed for $3,396,200.

Coleman-Elder, LLC wishes to purchase a portion of this parcel which was formerly part of the C&O Railroad

rail line and formerly identified as James City County Real Estate Tax Map Parcel No. 1240100061 (the

“Property”). A barrel factory once stood on this parcel and Coleman-Elder would someday like to place a

replica of the building back onto the Property. The Property is described as fronting on Church Lane the

approximate distance of 120 feet, extending back a depth of 76.41 feet on its southern boundary, and 110.00

feet on its northern boundary.

Coleman-Elder, LLC has indicated a desire to purchase the Property for $15,000. The Property is no longer

needed for County use and is surplus.

Following a public hearing, I recommend adoption of the attached resolution authorizing and directing the

County Administrator to execute any and all documents necessary to subdivide and convey the above-

described Property to Coleman-Elder, LLC.

ARK/nb

ForgeRdSale-mem

Attachment

R E S O L U T I O N

AUTHORIZATION OF SALE OF A PORTION OF PROPERTY LOCATED AT

3135 FORGE ROAD

WHEREAS, the County is the owner of certain real property located at 3135 Forge Road and further

identified as Parcel No. 1230100027 on the James City County Real Estate Tax Map; and

WHEREAS, a portion of the parcel, formerly identified as Parcel No. 1240100061 on the James City

County Real Estate Tax Map, was formerly part of the C&O Railroad rail line and is

generally described as fronting on Church Lane the approximate distance of 120 feet,

extending back a depth of 76.41 feet on its southern boundary and 110.00 feet on its

northern boundary (the “Property”); and

WHEREAS, the Property is surplus and no longer needed by the County; and

WHEREAS, Coleman-Elder, LLC desires to purchase the Property; and

WHEREAS, the Board of Supervisors of James City County, following a public hearing, is of the

opinion that it is in the public interest to subdivide and convey the Property to Coleman-

Elder for $15,000.


hereby authorizes and directs the County Administrator to execute any and all documents

necessary to convey the Property to Coleman-Elder, LLC.

____________________________________

Michael J. Hipple


ATTEST:

________________________________

Bryan J. Hill

Clerk to the Board


January, 2015.

ForgeRdSale-res

VOTES

AYE NAY ABSTAIN

JONES ____ ____ ____

MCGLENNON ____ ____ ____

ONIZUK ____ ____ ____

KENNEDY ____ ____ ____

HIPPLE ____ ____ ____

AGENDA ITEM NO. K.1.

ITEM SUMMARY

DATE: 1/27/2015


FROM: Bryan J. Hill, County Administrator

SUBJECT: County Administrator's Report

ATTACHMENTS:Description TypeMemo Cover Memo



M E M O R A N D U M



FROM: Bryan Hill, County Administrator

SUBJECT: County Administrator’s Report

The following is a summary of activities that took place January 8, 2015 through January 20, 2015:

January 8, 2015 (Thursday)

• Meeting with candidate for an HR Director position

• Meeting with LEAD Historic Triangle class

• Attended Grand Opening, Chambrel at Williamsburg

January 9, 2015 (Friday)

• Attended Service Award Breakfast

• Meeting with Jenni Tomes, Treasurer

• Meeting with Terry Hall, Chief of Emergency Communications, York County

• Meeting with candidate for an HR Director position

• Meeting with Allen Murphy, Development Management Director

January 12, 2015 (Monday)

• Meeting with Allen Murphy, Development Management Director

• Meeting with Ryan Ashe, Interim Fire Chief

• Meeting with Russell Seymour, Economic Development Director

• Meeting with Latara Branch, Civic Engagement Coordinator, and Renee Dallman, Senior

Communication Specialist

• Meeting with Sue Mellen, Financial and Management Services Assistant Director

January 13, 2015 (Tuesday)

• Attended Agenda Meeting

January 14, 2015 (Wednesday)

• Attended Parks and Recreation Department Recognition event

• Meeting with Russell Seymour, Economic Development Director; Kimberly Maloney,

Williamsburg Pottery President and CEO; and Peter Kao, Williamsburg Pottery Executive Vice

President

January 15, 2015 (Thursday)

• Interview with Austin Bogues, Virginia Gazette reporter

• Attending Colonial Area Republican Men's Association

County Administrator’s Report

January 27, 2015

Page 2

• Meeting with Jody Puckett, Communications Director, and Laura Messer, Administrative and

Tourism Coordinator

• Executive Leadership Team meeting

January 16, 2015 (Friday)

• Meeting with Max Hlavin, Assistant County Attorney

• Attended New Employee Orientation

• Meeting with Sue Mellen, FMS Director, and Patrick Page, Information Resources Management

Director

• Meeting with Dr. John Dever, Thomas Nelson Community College President, and Jody Puckett,

Communications Director

January 20, 2015 (Tuesday)

• Attended a tour of Anheuser-Busch

• Meeting with Thomas Tingle, Guernsey Tingle Architects President; Paul Gerhardt, Kaufman &

Canoles, P.C. Attorney; and Russell Seymour, Economic Development Director

• Meeting with Russell Seymour, Economic Development Director, and Randy Casey-Rutland, New

Town

• Meeting with Sue Mellen, FMS Director, and Cindy Monk, Human Resource Assistant Director

• Parks and Recreation Department Budget - Meeting with John Carnifax, P&R Director, and Sue

Mellen, FMS Director

• Meeting with Carl Lum, Busch Gardens Park President, and Karen Riordan, Greater Williamsburg

Chamber and Tourism Alliance President and CEO

BJH/gb

CAReport012715-mem

AGENDA ITEM NO. M.1.

ITEM SUMMARY

DATE: 1/27/2015



SUBJECT: Personnel Matter, the Appointment of Individuals to County Boards and/or Commissions pursuant to Section2.2-3711 (A) (1) of the Code of Virginia

Personnel Matter, the Appointment of Individuals to County Boards and/or Commissions pursuant to Section 2.2-3711 (A) (1) of the Code of Virginia

Planning CommissionBoard of EqualizationHistoric Triangle Bicycle Advisory CommitteeClean County Commission

ATTACHMENTS:Description TypePC Memo Cover MemoPC-attachment ExhibitBOE Memo Cover MemoBOE-attachment ExhibitHTBAC Memo Cover MemoHTBAC-attachment ExhibitCCC Memo Cover MemoCCC-attachment Exhibit










AGENDA ITEM NO. N.1.

ITEM SUMMARY

DATE: 1/27/2015



SUBJECT: Adjournment

Adjourn until 10 a.m. on January 31, 2015, for the Budget Retreat


Date post:	08-Apr-2022
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	3 times
Download:	0 times

N. ADJOURNMENT - Novusolutions

Documents